I got a hold of MSGT Arrieta at WTBN Quantico. Apparently Bill Skiles is the SgtMaj of the BN there. He's going to forward my email to Bill so hopefully I will have the info straight from SgtMaj Skiles.

Brother Wes,
You spoke with the "Real Deal" at BRM-3 about Krell, what more is left to say about the man or the matter?

Mark

By the way, how is the shooting coming along, are you ready for the 2009 season?

Yeah Mark, I know what you're saying. It just would be nice to have the very person who Krell is naming be the one to publicly set things straight. For everyone's benefit. I need no convincing, as I was there!

I've been practicing, but due to work I haven't been able to shoot any more matches (our movie wraps the end of December!). I have a new McM A-5 stock arriving next week, and I am having some barrel work done by Randy early next year. I will be at SCPRC, as long as I have a rifle to shoot!

I'm still doing well at the .22lr tactical matches. Haven't been out of the top three all year. Damn recoil!

It probably doesn't matter any more, since his sniper school story has been refuted, but his intellectual property claims don't hold up either. From his bio,

Trademarks aren't patents, and don't document anything other than a name or an image. Most patent holders know the difference. But then, a patent search doesn't seem to come up with his name or invention, nor can I find a withdrawn trademark in his name either.

I was able, however, to find a lot of similar systems that predate 2001, including some now worthless algorithyms I worked on back in the 80's (for tank shells, not snipers, and they sure weren't handheld).

It seems I worked on the predecessor systems to the ones Bruce worked on, but it doesn't help my marksmanship any. But I attribute that to the fact that he did his academic training at the University of New Orleans and the University of Houston, while I was wasting my time on the same at Harvard and MIT. And he did the Rand thing while I hung out at IBM and Bell Labs. Evidently, I chose poorly, and failed in my quest to be "the real deal". Oh well.

Anyone on here that has information regarding Bruce Krell and his training claims and expertise, please contact me. I am a detective with a large LE Agency, and it seems Mr Krell has taken the initiative to have himself appointed as a court certified firearms "expert" using his questionable resume.

He has been working for defense attorneys, most recently in trying to acquit a pair of defendants that were on trial for the attempted murder of two police officers. Much of his testimony and resume items are extremely suspect, and any assistance or direction would be appreciated.

That shoot sounds like a bunch of non-rate a.s.s.clownery. Their concepts for what they think are real world sniper operations are very wrong.

I'll start with this statement:

Quote:

We could not use angle cosine indicators, TIS slings, or laser rangefinders because they were "just fads and real operators realize they're just gimmicks and they stick with what has worked for years," or something to that effect.

"Real operators" (whatever that stupid moniker means) do whatever it takes to accomplish the mission. If I need to use a rangefinder to range a target, I do it. If I need to use an ACI and do some math, then I do it. If I need to use 550 cord to tie my rifle down for a much more stable platform, then I do it........any clime, any time, any terrain. Bottom line is, I do whatever I feel is necessary to succeed. I've used all kinds of crazy "gimmicks". If it works, it's neither crazy, nor is it a gimmick.

A genuine shooter with significant, substantial, valid training and experience would never refer to himself as an 'operator'. Guys who like being called operators are the ones who spend all their time and energy trying to perpetuate the tacticool commando, door-kicking, ninja persona.

Moving on.

I read back through your post several times and I'm trying to get a clear understanding of the sequence of events in how things were set up. Particularly how and when you guys were told to take your positions. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like the shooters were instructed to take positions and then the targets were set up. If this is the case, then they totally dropped the ball. Why would a shooter be in a position where he couldn't engage a target properly. I don't know too many smart shooters who would do so.

What they should have done is placed their targets without you seeing them, given you your brief behind the mask of some terrain and then had you move into the objective area, ID the targets and then move into a position that would allow you to engage them.........because that is what smart shooters with real experience do. I've not only participated in, but also conducted numerous training evolutions to various degrees as I described. What they also could have done, was had each shooter assigned to cover a sector looking into the SDZ. The instructors could then place targets throughout the impact area so that each shooter could engage say, at least three targets of unknown distance for example, and then allow a short amount of time to range and engage. Something along those lines.

Based on what the OP has described, it sounds like the instructors either don't have their crap together, or where just trying to make some easy cash off of the shooters............or maybe both.

I haven't read through all 6 pages of this thread. I may some time down the road when I have nothing better to do.

For California they will be shipped non-destructively blocked to 10 rounds to comply with the stupid and hateful decrees of our stupid and hateful insane clown Marxist moron bandit overlords in that festering moral and intellectual dung heap known as Sacramento.

Just proves that douchenozzles don't change, guy sounds like a turd in 2009? And according to the investigator is a turd now.

Necrothread be dammed if he's perpetuating shenanery this incident and all like it should be fair game for folks doing their research regarding shooting teachers. I would want to know if the guy I'm about to give money to is questionable.

__________________
I know what this man needs.............bring me the vodka

I read back through your post several times and I'm trying to get a clear understanding of the sequence of events in how things were set up. Particularly how and when you guys were told to take your positions. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like the shooters were instructed to take positions and then the targets were set up.

the match director stood on the side of the hill amd pointed where the targets would be setup.
They used the same three targets throughout the day, leap-frogging the nearest target out past the other two each time.

So the first stage, if we shot targets at 80, 100 & 120, they would move the 80yd target to 150.
Then, the 3rd stage, they would move the 100 yd target past the 120 and 150 targets.

The students of the guy running the class had prior experience in the location and the target placements.
They knew to setup at the far right as the targets would become invisible to most other positions.
The guy running the match never told us this.
The targets were well past where he pointed that they would be placed.
If the targets were only placed where he said they would be, most people would have been able to see them.

As they moved the targets further and further, the targets were no longer visible to many of the shooters...